Why Paul Kelly thinks expansion would help end NHL lockout

But that's my point: If the system actually operates better when you remove TOR, MON and NYR than if you remove NYI, PHX, CBJ, doesn't that mean the problem is the SYSTEM and not the TEAMS?

While the league is long-term better off with better markets and no teams "being a drain," the goal is to get as many teams as possible within the salary range with 50-57% of their HRR going to the players.

Let's say everyone in the league was making at least $90 million in revenues (and everyone else is unchanged). That adds $114 million to the revenues of the bottom 11 teams. You would think this would make the league better: No more "bottom feeders."

And it would, but not by much. Instead of 11 teams with 57% of HRR a combined $64.76 million below the floor, you'd have 12 teams a combined $61.39 million below the floor. So you need $114 million in revenues to cover $3.45 million in increased player costs. That is a broken model.

To solve the league's woes, you simply set up the system to be based on "THE MIDDLE TEAMS" instead of the "AVERAGE TEAM."

Using the MEDIAN of league revenue as your baseline for the the payroll midpoint, five teams move from below average to above average (and can pay small amounts into revenue sharing).

21 teams would be in the payroll range. The "bottom feeders" are a combined $10.3 million below the floor. And there's only two of them: NYI and PHX. NYI has a new building coming, so don't worry about them. Make the eligible for revenue sharing for a couple years (plenty to go around now: fewer teams need less money to hit the midpoint or floor)

Let's say NYI moving to Brooklyn gives them $98 million 2011 revenue dollars.
If you moved PHX to QUE and they matched OTT's revenues, the AVERAGE revenue would go up $8.3 million (and the midpoint $4.73 million). But based on MEDIAN, the midpoint only goes up $1.5 million with those two franchise moves.

All 30 teams would be either "within the payroll range" or (six teams) comfortably spending to the cap (based on 2011 dollars).

Of course, that works using 2011 dollars. The problem is you need the growth rate of the median and the bottom to be as close to the same as possible going forward. But it is a lot easier to keep up with the median growth rate (about 27%) than it is to keep up with the average growth rate (38%).

That's funny, so what difference does that make, if you put a team in a small Canadian market, like Saskatoon, where it would probably be better in revenue in Phoenix by few millions but still wouldn't be enough to be in the top 20? Saskatoon only has +250K people who loves hockey. Its funny that trying to leave failing franchises so it pulls the payroll down. What if when people say Phoenix becomes successful (hypothetical, we all know thats a long shot) do you need to move Phoenix to New Mexico? lol

That's funny, so what difference does that make, if you put a team in a small Canadian market, like Saskatoon, where it would probably be better in revenue in Phoenix by few millions but still wouldn't be enough to be in the top 20? Saskatoon only has +250K people who loves hockey. Its funny that trying to leave failing franchises so it pulls the payroll down. What if when people say Phoenix becomes successful (hypothetical, we all know thats a long shot) do you need to move Phoenix to New Mexico? lol

Funny, sad, not funny ha ha.

Basically: It's two different problems (Broken System, Bad Franchises), not one

Basically: It's two different problems (Broken System, Bad Franchises), not one

Well atleast you know there TWO problems not one. The first, you need time to talk and think about it, because it involves money, and people love fighting about money. The other, it could be ownership, it could be managment problems, it could be fanbase, it could be corporate problems, it could be wrong location.

Basically: It's two different problems (Broken System, Bad Franchises), not one

Actually it's three. Broken system yes. Bad franchises yes. But a question about the market in which a franchise operates, is a different question than one about how the franchise operates within that market. On this forum I've actually heard more of the former than the latter.

Take Phoenix as an example. Phoenix operates properly within the other three major league sports. The Cardinals and Diamondbacks have won titles, and the Suns are one of the better franchises in the NBA. None of these teams are the richest in their sport, but all of them are credible to get along as middle 10 teams at the worst. Clearly, if there's a problem here, it's not necessarily the market per se. And yet the fact that it's the Phoenix market that is the culprit is held as gospel by a lot of people who are convinced that their town would do better by the Yotes. They may not say that in so many words, but the tone of their arguments tends to STRONGLY imply it.

Also I'm not convinced that being southern is the problem. It doesn't really take a lot of knowledge about hockey to watch the sport and enjoy it. Heck, I knew nothing about it 6-7 years ago when I fell in love with the game and I still don't know as much as I'd like, but I know good sports entertainment when I watch it, and hockey is the most watchable product in televised sports in my not so humble opinion. Least amount of time spent doing nothing but watching players line up of all the Big Four. You ought to be able to market that game to enough people like me to keep going while attending a hockey game gets to be a habit.

Also it's not like Southern markets haven't taken to the NHL. Tampa Bay is more or less successful as an NHL market. No one's talking about moving Dallas. Carolina and Nashville struggle at times, but get by for the most part.

So no, evidence toesn't really point to southern-ness being the problem per se. There's a certain Canadian jingoistic nationalism that suggests that the failure of Atlanta, and the struggles of Phoenix (and to a lesser extent Florida, Nashville and Carolina) prove that the American experiment has failed, but there's plenty of counterexamples to give the lie to Southern-ness or American-ness -- to the market itself -- being a culprit in the high profile failures.

No, the real issue is that the franchises in Phoenix and Atlanta were horribly mismanaged, and given poor direction at a time during their histories when they needed the best possible leadership. It was the FRANCHISE, and decisions made at the level of that franchise, that were the problem. The problem was not with the market per se, except in the minds of a handful of Canadian nationalists who can't accept that American markets 4 or 5 times their home city's size need to be tried on to see if an NHL franchise will fit there before their particular local failed experiment is reattempted.

Actually it's three. Broken system yes. Bad franchises yes. But a question about the market in which a franchise operates, is a different question than one about how the franchise operates within that market. On this forum I've actually heard more of the former than the latter.

Take Phoenix as an example. Phoenix operates properly within the other three major league sports. The Cardinals and Diamondbacks have won titles, and the Suns are one of the better franchises in the NBA. None of these teams are the richest in their sport, but all of them are credible to get along as middle 10 teams at the worst. Clearly, if there's a problem here, it's not necessarily the market per se. And yet the fact that it's the Phoenix market that is the culprit is held as gospel by a lot of people who are convinced that their town would do better by the Yotes. They may not say that in so many words, but the tone of their arguments tends to STRONGLY imply it.

Also I'm not convinced that being southern is the problem. It doesn't really take a lot of knowledge about hockey to watch the sport and enjoy it. Heck, I knew nothing about it 6-7 years ago when I fell in love with the game and I still don't know as much as I'd like, but I know good sports entertainment when I watch it, and hockey is the most watchable product in televised sports in my not so humble opinion. Least amount of time spent doing nothing but watching players line up of all the Big Four. You ought to be able to market that game to enough people like me to keep going while attending a hockey game gets to be a habit.

Also it's not like Southern markets haven't taken to the NHL. Tampa Bay is more or less successful as an NHL market. No one's talking about moving Dallas. Carolina and Nashville struggle at times, but get by for the most part.

So no, evidence toesn't really point to southern-ness being the problem per se. There's a certain Canadian jingoistic nationalism that suggests that the failure of Atlanta, and the struggles of Phoenix (and to a lesser extent Florida, Nashville and Carolina) prove that the American experiment has failed, but there's plenty of counterexamples to give the lie to Southern-ness or American-ness -- to the market itself -- being a culprit in the high profile failures.

No, the real issue is that the franchises in Phoenix and Atlanta were horribly mismanaged, and given poor direction at a time during their histories when they needed the best possible leadership. It was the FRANCHISE, and decisions made at the level of that franchise, that were the problem. The problem was not with the market per se, except in the minds of a handful of Canadian nationalists who can't accept that American markets 4 or 5 times their home city's size need to be tried on to see if an NHL franchise will fit there before their particular local failed experiment is reattempted.

Its funny cause you still ignore the fact that Atlanta only has +300K generated revenue per game, while Winnipeg has +1.4K. Still ignore the fact that, not only people in Winnipeg buys ST, but people from Northwestern Ontario, Saskatchewan, even Minnesota and North Dakota. So a small Canadian city doesn't only attract people from the city limits but around the REGION too.

So I don't know about you, but I'd take that as a STATEMENT. Same with QC, because not only the Habs and Nordiques rivals, but they hate each other like heck. Even if QC doesn't have a team, they still boo habs fans, and if they did move on, there wouldn't be any hardcore nordiques fans existing after 14 years of no NHL hockey. Atlanta have been tried, Phoenix too. Guess what after 16 years, did it turn a dime? There's common sense in business and its supply and demand. I guess in sports demand means the population, and not the NEED of a certain group.

The problem with some people is, they keep on saying "big TV deals" but guess what? It doesn't exist, and as far as the demand goes viewers in some markets doesn't really match the so called "tv deals" they are bragging about. I love it when you think Im a Canadian nationalist, when I clearly support Seattle and the move of the Isles to Brooklyn. Some people assume that just cause you're Canadian means you can't appreaciate American hockey markets. The thing is, as a HOCKEY fan, I know where hockey works and hockey doesn't or if it does work, its not an NHL team fit in that market, but a lower caliber AHL team.

Its funny cause its like building a headquarters of a computer company in a small town, instead of starting with a small shop. If you want it to grow, you need to start from scratch. Everything starts from scratch all the way up. People are just blinded by the lights in their downtown area, they think everything can work there.

Goes back to the Cuba soccer scene vs NYC soccer scene, sure NY could draw lots of fans, but does it match a soccer nation? Nope. Culture and location is looked at first, before money and potential. Thats how you grow a business.

Its funny cause you still ignore the fact that Atlanta only has +300K generated revenue per game, while Winnipeg has +1.4K. Still ignore the fact that, not only people in Winnipeg buys ST, but people from Northwestern Ontario, Saskatchewan, even Minnesota and North Dakota. So a small Canadian city doesn't only attract people from the city limits but around the REGION too.

And so do other big league markets in places like Carolina. Cross regional support is a must. If you think the pittance you get from outside your region is the reason you're more successful than Atlanta, then you're just wrong.

You're comparing a team that had a decade to screw up its relationship with the fans with one that hasn't had a chance to screw that relationship up at all yet. It's kind of apples and oranges. Put Winnipeg in the same financial sinkhole the franchise was in when in Atlanta, and they don't make 1.4M/game, even with Kuhnaydyunfanz.

This is relevant because much of the sweetheart deal the Jets are getting right now is centered around the goodwill of the town with the current ownership. That dynamic won't stay that tight forever -- conflicts inevitably emerge between team and town, especially when public funding is involved. Even if by some miracle they don't, sooner or later, that ownership will change. If your situation right now is ideal for the Jets as I believe it is likely to get, and you're still just about breaking even, then I pretty much rest my case.

TL ; DR -- let's see what the Winnipeg situation looks like in 5 years before stating anything with that kind of confidence.

Quote:

So I don't know about you, but I'd take that as a STATEMENT. Same with QC, because not only the Habs and Nordiques rivals, but they hate each other like heck. Even if QC doesn't have a team, they still boo habs fans, and if they did move on, there wouldn't be any hardcore nordiques fans existing after 14 years of no NHL hockey. Atlanta have been tried, Phoenix too. Guess what after 16 years, did it turn a dime? There's common sense in business and its supply and demand. I guess in sports demand means the population, and not the NEED of a certain group.

It means both. The problem is that you're fixated so much on what for a complete lack of anything resembling the word I want to say I'll grudgingly call "quality" you're ignoring the question of quantity altogether. Sure there's rabid fans in Quebec. No one doubted their existence, Is there enough of them to support a team to the cap floor when the town is in the financial crapper, the team is out of favor with most medium-core fans, and the ownership sucks?

Because if you can't do that, then it may be 5, 10, or 20 years, any team you put in Quebec City is eventually going to move.

If you depend on the goodwill of a large portion of your small population to allow your team to exist, eventually it won't. No team stays at the peak of fan interest indefinitely. Go to a big city and you can achieve the same success much easier by playing the law of averages because you don't NEED that kind of rabidity to keep the barn just as full..

Not to say Atlanta didn't horribly bungle that with the Thrashers -- but that's the point. They bungled it. That wasn't a normal situation in a big American market. That was Atlanta at its worst. Any ownership that handled a team as badly as the Thrashers did is going to run into the same problem, no matter who that team is and what market it plays in.

Quote:

The problem with some people is, they keep on saying "big TV deals" but guess what? It doesn't exist, and as far as the demand goes viewers in some markets doesn't really match the so called "tv deals" they are bragging about.

Just exactly what in the hell are you talking about? American media dollars have exploded since the big expansion into so-called nontraditional markets. I love how you can manage to try and deny that with a straight face.

Quote:

I love it when you think Im a Canadian nationalist, when I clearly support Seattle and the move of the Isles to Brooklyn.

because those moves clearly give the lie to the possibility that someone can be a Canadian nationalist. You're speaking from emotion and not from logic, and quite frankly you're in the process of making a fool of yourself.

Quote:

Some people assume that just cause you're Canadian means you can't appreaciate American hockey markets.

And just exactly who said that? I'm calling you out here. Specific quotes, properly cited, right here, right now.

Quote:

The thing is, as a HOCKEY fan, I know where hockey works and hockey doesn't or if it does work, its not an NHL team fit in that market, but a lower caliber AHL team.

One more time, en anglais, s'il vous plait.

Quote:

Goes back to the Cuba soccer scene vs NYC soccer scene, sure NY could draw lots of fans, but does it match a soccer nation? Nope.

Culture and location is looked at first, before money and potential. Thats how you grow a business

Actually, the New York Red Bull alone outgrossed the Cuban soccer leagues this year. So take that passion and culture and put it in the appropriate location.

It's unfortunate because CBJ seems to be heading down a treacherous road as well. The latest NHL expansions seem to be struggling no matter where they are.

Columbus reminds me strongly of the Hartford Whalers. The franchises are very similar in many ways, and for all the local pride, the Whale never really did much in the league before it moved. 3 winning seasons in a 25 year history isn't much.

That is unfortunate for sure. Hopefully they can get their act together and start putting together winning seasons to build fan support. I believe their lease to the arena is still many, many years away from expiring so they have plenty of time to turn things around before becoming another target of canadian relocation; economic environments willing of course.

It's more like Paul Kelly was whinning about the CHL and the CHL told him to either back up the slander he was talking about (All teams pay players blah blah), shut up, or keep saying it and chance a defemation lawsuit. Guess which one he picked.

That is unfortunate for sure. Hopefully they can get their act together and start putting together winning seasons to build fan support. I believe their lease to the arena is still many, many years away from expiring so they have plenty of time to turn things around before becoming another target of canadian relocation; economic environments willing of course.

Don't kid yourself -- the Columbus Blue Jackets were another target of Canadian relocation since the moment they opened their doors. With a very few exceptions every franchise created in the United States since the early 90's is. Canadians reacted to the departure of the Jets Mk. 1 and the Nordiques in much the manner of a child who has his toy taken away, and the tantrum never really fully stopped.

At the core of it, they just can't quite accept that Canada is not a true economic rival of the United States. We're good trading partners and allies, but in any direct relationship between the two nations one of us wears the pants and the other one, well, doesn't. A certain brand of Canadian can't bear to admit it so you just watch the litany that will follow the post and see what I mean. The NHL thing is just one more part of that.

Nevermind that just one generation earlier that same fan was talking just as disparagingly about the Western Canadian teams. It took the WHL to break that particular bit of nonsense. I wonder what it'll take to break this bizarre Canadian exclusivism when it comes to the NHL.

Don't kid yourself -- the Columbus Blue Jackets were another target of Canadian relocation since the moment they opened their doors. With a very few exceptions every franchise created in the United States since the early 90's is. Canadians reacted to the departure of the Jets Mk. 1 and the Nordiques in much the manner of a child who has his toy taken away, and the tantrum never really fully stopped.

Nevermind that just one generation earlier that same fan was talking just as disparagingly about the Western Canadian teams. It took the WHL to break that particular bit of nonsense. I wonder what it'll take to break this bizarre Canadian exclusivism when it comes to the NHL.

A Canadian and American Conference with 2 divisions in each. I don't want to make it a "them versus us" thing, but I'm sure they'd love to see a situation like that every year since it is "their game". That's many moons and many galaxies far away though.

Assuming they the league returns to action soon and doesn't kill off growth, I'm still wagering for expo teams in 4 years or so. Especially if they enact that strange conference/division pseudo alignment where 2 of the divisions have more teams in them to compete against.

Columbus reminds me strongly of the Hartford Whalers. The franchises are very similar in many ways, and for all the local pride, the Whale never really did much in the league before it moved. 3 winning seasons in a 25 year history isn't much.

No, you should not take a lot of comfort from that comparison.

The big things that Columbus have going for it that Hartford doesn't is that the Jackets have Nationwide Insurance as a shareholder in the team and the fact that Columbus isn't trapped in a corridor between several teams.

A Canadian and American Conference with 2 divisions in each. I don't want to make it a "them versus us" thing, but I'm sure they'd love to see a situation like that every year since it is "their game". That's many moons and many galaxies far away though.

Assuming they the league returns to action soon and doesn't kill off growth, I'm still wagering for expo teams in 4 years or so. Especially if they enact that strange conference/division pseudo alignment where 2 of the divisions have more teams in them to compete against.

I think any kind of North-South split would be very bad.

I like the idea of the new four-conference alignment because it eliminates the southeast and pacific divisions. I think "segregation" is bad. You put all kinds of new teams into one division with each other. That doesn't make them "part of" the league, it makes them an annex to the league.

I like the idea of the new four-conference alignment because it eliminates the southeast and pacific divisions. I think "segregation" is bad. You put all kinds of new teams into one division with each other. That doesn't make them "part of" the league, it makes them an annex to the league.

Pretty much. And when they're accompanied by exactly one well established team, that team is going to have a tendency to dominate said division and get a much richer opinion of themselves than they probably deserve, only to see its squad melt time and time again once the playoffs come around and only the real teams are left.

You know why we say "hockey works in Dallas, but it doesn't in ATL, PHX and FLA" ? Because Dallas was managed well, won, and built a fan base. People say hockey "failed" in ATL and PHX because the owners didn't care/weren't smart enough to make make it work. In Florida, people say it's "failing" because the owners care enough to try (unlike PHX/ATL) but haven't really won much.

You know where hockey works? Everywhere. Cause hockey is awesome. You know where hockey "fails"? Where owners mismanage franchise and fail to create fans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetsFlyHigh

Goes back to the Cuba soccer scene vs NYC soccer scene, sure NY could draw lots of fans, but does it match a soccer nation? Nope. Culture and location is looked at first, before money and potential. Thats how you grow a business.

Culture and location? No, just location. The same principle here with the NHL in non-traditional markets is the same principle at work with soccer critics. Tons of idiots say stupid things like "Americans don't care about soccer."

Which is the bigger soccer country: USA or Portugal? Portugal, duh. But which country had higher TV ratings for the 2010 World Cup for their country's matches? USA trounced Portugal in viewers. The US three matches in 2010 averaged 11.1 million viewers. Data is unavailabel for Portugal, but it's under 10.6, because they only have 10.57 million people.

The simple fact is that expanding into non-traditional markets created more new NHL fans.

Location is all that matters. By the logic that you NEED existing culture for a product to be successful would be like saying "there's no reason to sell personal computers or cell phones to anyone outside the markets that had hockey in 1990. It's just a bunch of farmers and ranchers. What do they need cell phones and PCs for?"

You don't need culture, you need people. You go to where the people are, because a good product changes the culture.

You know why we say "hockey works in Dallas, but it doesn't in ATL, PHX and FLA" ? Because Dallas was managed well, won, and built a fan base. People say hockey "failed" in ATL and PHX because the owners didn't care/weren't smart enough to make make it work. In Florida, people say it's "failing" because the owners care enough to try (unlike PHX/ATL) but haven't really won much.

You know where hockey works? Everywhere. Cause hockey is awesome. You know where hockey "fails"? Where owners mismanage franchise and fail to create fans.

Careful there, you're talking to a hockey fan, who knows a bit more about how and where these things work.

Actually it's three. Broken system yes. Bad franchises yes. But a question about the market in which a franchise operates, is a different question than one about how the franchise operates within that market. On this forum I've actually heard more of the former than the latter.

Take Phoenix as an example. Phoenix operates properly within the other three major league sports. The Cardinals and Diamondbacks have won titles, and the Suns are one of the better franchises in the NBA. None of these teams are the richest in their sport, but all of them are credible to get along as middle 10 teams at the worst. Clearly, if there's a problem here, it's not necessarily the market per se. And yet the fact that it's the Phoenix market that is the culprit is held as gospel by a lot of people who are convinced that their town would do better by the Yotes. They may not say that in so many words, but the tone of their arguments tends to STRONGLY imply it.

Also I'm not convinced that being southern is the problem. It doesn't really take a lot of knowledge about hockey to watch the sport and enjoy it. Heck, I knew nothing about it 6-7 years ago when I fell in love with the game and I still don't know as much as I'd like, but I know good sports entertainment when I watch it, and hockey is the most watchable product in televised sports in my not so humble opinion. Least amount of time spent doing nothing but watching players line up of all the Big Four. You ought to be able to market that game to enough people like me to keep going while attending a hockey game gets to be a habit.

Also it's not like Southern markets haven't taken to the NHL. Tampa Bay is more or less successful as an NHL market. No one's talking about moving Dallas. Carolina and Nashville struggle at times, but get by for the most part.

So no, evidence toesn't really point to southern-ness being the problem per se. There's a certain Canadian jingoistic nationalism that suggests that the failure of Atlanta, and the struggles of Phoenix (and to a lesser extent Florida, Nashville and Carolina) prove that the American experiment has failed, but there's plenty of counterexamples to give the lie to Southern-ness or American-ness -- to the market itself -- being a culprit in the high profile failures.

No, the real issue is that the franchises in Phoenix and Atlanta were horribly mismanaged, and given poor direction at a time during their histories when they needed the best possible leadership. It was the FRANCHISE, and decisions made at the level of that franchise, that were the problem. The problem was not with the market per se, except in the minds of a handful of Canadian nationalists who can't accept that American markets 4 or 5 times their home city's size need to be tried on to see if an NHL franchise will fit there before their particular local failed experiment is reattempted.

Sometime these franchises have been mismanaged, sometime they won cups(Dallas, Tampa, Carolina). But at the end of day, they are weak markets. Dallas has maintained good teams every year, yet have nothing to show for as far as attendances. Nashville do what they can with what they have, in fact they have a great organization and the fans show up but they are losing money and can't get their hands on an owner willing to spend money, nobody in that region is interested.

Don't kid yourself -- the Columbus Blue Jackets were another target of Canadian relocation since the moment they opened their doors. With a very few exceptions every franchise created in the United States since the early 90's is. Canadians reacted to the departure of the Jets Mk. 1 and the Nordiques in much the manner of a child who has his toy taken away, and the tantrum never really fully stopped.

At the core of it, they just can't quite accept that Canada is not a true economic rival of the United States. We're good trading partners and allies, but in any direct relationship between the two nations one of us wears the pants and the other one, well, doesn't. A certain brand of Canadian can't bear to admit it so you just watch the litany that will follow the post and see what I mean. The NHL thing is just one more part of that.

Nevermind that just one generation earlier that same fan was talking just as disparagingly about the Western Canadian teams. It took the WHL to break that particular bit of nonsense. I wonder what it'll take to break this bizarre Canadian exclusivism when it comes to the NHL.

But as far as hockey and money, Canada is the true juggernaut. So we cannot say there's jealousy there. Canada is where the power lies. The money is there, most of the players comes from there. I actually think Canada is not a fully exploited market as far as NHL hockey. The sky's the limit.

As far as hockey and money, Toronto and Montreal are the juggernaut, most of Canada is hangers-on, riding that particular gravy train to make their contribution to the NHL look bigger than it is.

Outside those two markets, the tiny but faithful Canadian markets vs the huge, tepid American markets is pretty much a pull. With the tiebreaker in my mind being what happens if one of those huge American markets becomes less tepid and starts buying into its team.

I consider the existing American big markets falling in love with hockey much more likely than, say, Winnipeg becoming a market to rival Toronto, or even Minnesota, anytime soon.

Sometime these franchises have been mismanaged, sometime they won cups(Dallas, Tampa, Carolina). But at the end of day, they are weak markets. Dallas has maintained good teams every year, yet have nothing to show for as far as attendances. Nashville do what they can with what they have, in fact they have a great organization and the fans show up but they are losing money and can't get their hands on an owner willing to spend money, nobody in that region is interested.

As far as hockey and money, Toronto and Montreal are the juggernaut, most of Canada is hangers-on, riding that particular gravy train to make their contribution to the NHL look bigger than it is.

Outside those two markets, the tiny but faithful Canadian markets vs the huge, tepid American markets is pretty much a pull. With the tiebreaker in my mind being what happens if one of those huge American markets becomes less tepid and starts buying into its team.

I consider the existing American big markets falling in love with hockey much more likely than, say, Winnipeg becoming a market to rival Toronto, or even Minnesota, anytime soon.

Vancouver is top 5 in revenues. The others have a great showing too. Of the Canadian franchises, nobody is losing money and the corporate World is very supportive of hockey in Canada. The whole community is living, breathing hockey when you have a franchise in a Canadian city. The engine of this league is the few big American markets and Canada basically.

I like the idea of the new four-conference alignment because it eliminates the southeast and pacific divisions. I think "segregation" is bad. You put all kinds of new teams into one division with each other. That doesn't make them "part of" the league, it makes them an annex to the league.

Pretty much. And when they're accompanied by exactly one well established team, that team is going to have a tendency to dominate said division and get a much richer opinion of themselves than they probably deserve, only to see its squad melt time and time again once the playoffs come around and only the real teams are left.

Or, that one established team will continue to be irrelevant, until one year they sort of just steamroll through the playoffs toward a championship. It can go either way.